From: Robin Brouwer (rsbrouwer@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 11:47:16 BST
Hi Matt
Matt wrote:
>If the distinction between philosopher and philosophologer is an issue of
>self-image ("Do you think you are discovering eternal truths or creating
>better ways of thinking?"), then it is much easier to divide them. Its the
>same distinction as that between, as I called them, "universalists" and
>"historicists" or between, as you pointed out, "Platonists" and "Sophists."
> When you're dealing with self-image, its easier to spot your prey.
>However, then you've disjoined the distinction completely from issues of
>practice, like how they write (historically? non-?) or how original they
>are or if they get mad at people for not believing their beliefs. _Unless_
>you further stipulate such issues into it, which means my last post becomes
>more relevant, because I think such issues as those swing free of the
>self-image issue.
Robin:
They do swing free of the self image issue, and I do believe the distinction
lies there.
Matt wrote:
>For instance, if you think the difference between a philosopher and a
>philosophologer is the above difference, turning on the possibility of
>eternal truth, then you don't get to call me a philosophologer.
Robin
I know i don't, I even mentioned that on the bottom of the post I started to
make this distinction in.
Matt wrote:
>I am most avowedly not a believer in Eternal Truth. The few times you
>start to suggest such a thing, as above, you start equivocating into the
>practice of what we do, how I write for instance. You think I write
>"philosophologistically," but what is that? Given all of the difficulties
>I've raised about the distinction, it isn't clear to me how you're using
>it. It looks like the old way, meaning something like I write like an
>academic or scholastically. Which is true. Which is why I wanted to talk
>about writing style, the actual practice of philosophers. Because I don't
>think it matters a whit to creativity, though Pirsig and you apparently do.
Robin:
Let me start by saying that in my opinion there is no authority to be gotten
by quoting others.
The validity of an idea of any individual will not become bigger if someone
else has thought the same thing.
Having said that you might understand why I have felt that i was
participating in a discussion that for me had low value, I even start to
feel bad when I am beeing lectured about how past thinkers disagree with me.
I stepped into this conversation because I liked your ideas and visions, I
agreed to some but not all so I stepped into the discussion.
My last post was horribly written with very few actual thoughts but more
(too much even) emotion. The great effect was that in this post it feels as
if you are giving your actual ideas without seeking authority in past
thinkers.
Matt wrote:
>I'm not trying to prove you wrong. However, I thought we were in an
>dialectical argument, exchanging viewpoints, arguments, evidence,
>interpretations, etc. If you bring up something from the history of
>philosophy to contextualize your point, I would think it warranted for my
>riposte to contest that context if I think its wrong.
Robin:
The reason for me feeling bad about that part was that I truly believed the
old distinction would help to explain my own thoughts, it was not to gain
authority from it, merely to help explain my ideas.
If i was trying to gain authority from it then it might have been justified
and usefulll to say it wrong.
But since i do not use it to contextualize my point but instead to help
explain my point then there is no use in proving it wrong. A normal reaction
then would be to say that my example does not corelate to the idea, this
proves the example wrong but the idea could still be right.
I dislike beeing in a conversation where I have to make sure each historical
remark i make has to be exactly right, since I do not use the history to
give my ideas validity, i merely use them if think it can help people
understand my ideas.
Matt:
>My remarks in the last few weeks have been to blur the distinction between
>looking "inwards" towards your "own thought" and "out" towards "history.")
>Because I'm unoriginal? I have responses to that. Because I'm
>argumentative (that's a possibility that plausibly cropped up in your last
>reply)? I have responses to that. But I'm just not clear about what
>you're trying to say and why you're saying it, what you're opposed to and
>what you're trying to do.
>
>Matt
Robin:
Ofcourse it is ok if you would like to quote old thinkers to help you make
your point, as long as you don't base your point on many old thinkers.
This is what I see as unoriginal and authoritive since to disagree I would
have to find out what for instance Kant ment when he said something. Things
like that make it difficult to discuss, it is however possible to talk with
you about ideas and points that were based on your ideas, mostly because you
are alive and speaking still which makes it possible for you to eleborate so
we can be sure that we don't misunderstand eachother.
The last paragraph does not give the distinction of philosopher or
philosophologer, it shows a difference in writing style that is often found
in relation to a philosophologer as i distinguished him or her.
What Pirsig did when following the word Arete down in history was to show
that others had thought up very similar things, he did however not base his
ideas on the word Arete, hi simply used it to help make out his point.
Regards Robin
_________________________________________________________________
Spreek vrienden en familie met MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 11:51:29 BST